Can you tell us a little about the impetus for the study?
Rhode Island families, including Jewish households, were especially hard hit by the 2008-2011 recession and, even in the face of a modest improvement in the economy, many face continued economic hardship. Rhode Island still has among the highest rates of unemployment in the nation.
Rhode Island is also home to the oldest surviving synagogue in the United States and its Jewish community has a long history of helping each other dating back to the 1870s with the founding of the Ladies Hebrew Benevolent Association. Following in this long tradition of assisting members of the Jewish community in difficulty, the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island is now facing a host of tough decisions about how and where to best deploy its resources to address economic needs of Jewish households. The Alliance sought the assistance of CMJS to conduct research that would aid their understanding of the economic challenges and needs of Jewish households in the Alliance’s catchment area communities.
What is “living on the edge” How did you define economic insecurity?
We used the term “living on the edge” to describe the economic reality of the substantial group of families that stretch to meet their basic living costs and don’t earn enough to create their own safety net of personal savings that they can employ in the case of an emergency expense. Even modest unexpected costs can topple the economic stability of these households.
In this blog post, CMJS researchers Liz Tighe, Raquel Magidin de Kramer and Dina Bleckman describe a recent research trip to eastern Ukraine and Moscow. This project is the latest in a series of reports on international comparisons of neediness among elderly Jews in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) conducted by researchers at CMJS. The present work also included an initial review of data on international comparisons of the situation for children at risk in the FSU.
Throughout the FSU, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) has supported the development of Hesed welfare and Jewish community centers to assist in the provision of services to Jews in need and to support the renewal of Jewish life after years of suppression. Raquel, Dina, and I visited Hesed welfare centers in eastern Ukraine and Moscow, Russia in order to gain a better understanding of data collected by the JDC as part of their case management system. As a resource for describing the needs of Jewish elderly and children served by these centers, the Hesed data are unparalleled.
Playground in Melitopol, Ukraine with the old mikveh (ritual bath) in background.
The primary goal of the visits was to determine how well the data reflect the nature of the problems experienced by elderly and children in these regions. It was also important to gain a better understanding of how information is interpreted and understood by those in the field who were collecting the data and whether their understanding is reflected in how we interpret the data here in the United States. Given that the nature of community in these regions can vary dramatically from the typical communities we study here in the United States, it was also important for us to get a sense of the complexities of the social context in which these data are collected.
Our trip began with a late night arrival to the city of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine. Dnepr is the fourth largest city in Ukraine, with a population of around one million. Located on the Dnieper River (which was frozen during our visit!), the city had been an industrial center for weapons and space industries during the Soviet era and had been a closed city, not appearing on maps and with restrictions on residents for travel outside and for outsiders to enter.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the city was estimated to be nearly 40% Jewish. At the start of World War II, it was estimated fewer than 20% Jewish. Today, the Jewish community is estimated to be around 40,000, less than 5% of the total population in the city.
We also visited a smaller city outside of Dnepr, Melitopol. We were so focused on our quest to understand the local data that we were taken by surprise by the generosity and enthusiasm of local community members who had prepared traditional Jewish music and dances to perform for us. We could not resist pulling out an iphone to try to capture some of what was experienced.
For Dina, whose family had emigrated from Russia when she was very young, seeing people engaged in Jewish activities in Dnepr and Melitopol had special meaning. From groups of men meeting at the local synagogue in Dnepr on the Tu B’Shvat holiday who invited us to join them for a fig and an Ha-aitz blessing, to the Hebrew classes, dance classes, literature clubs and other activities organized through the community centers, it was a powerful experience to witness such engagement in Jewish life knowing that just 25 years earlier there was nothing.
Jewish folk dance group in Melitpol.
Raquel, a daughter of a life-long Yiddish teacher, was especially taken by the renewed interest in the Yiddish language and culture. And all of us were impressed by the Tzedakah-o-matic in the lobby of one of the local Hesed centers, which in collaboration with a local banker, enabled users to make anonymous donations electronically.
Melitpol Hesed Center.
We learned much about the local data and we left with much more, including fond memories of the hospitality of all, particularly the patience and dedication of our translator, Anna, who worked tirelessly to convey our research questions to local staff and community members, and the generosity of the cooks at Hesed Menachem—the kindness in the food that they prepared and shared with us will always be remembered.
We also left with fond memories of dumplings, chicken schnitzel, pickled vegetables, sweet farmer’s cheese blintzes, and the best beet salad I have ever had. If anyone can find the recipe from the restaurant in Melitopol I’ll forever be grateful!
Our report on the needs of Jewish elderly, which includes some of the Hesed data, can be viewed here, and the short-form research brief here. It might be a bit more difficult to digest than dumplings, but we hope it provides at least a bit of food for thought. Enjoy!
Note: This blog entry is, in part, a response to a news report of my comments/questions about the 2011 New York Community Study. It’s a brief summary of my key questions and also reflects conversations with the research team, lead by Prof. Steven M. Cohen.
Leonard Saxe, director of CMJS and SSRI
In June, UJA-Federation of New York released its long-anticipated 2011 population study. For some, the headline was stunning: The Jewish population of New York had grown more than 8% during the last decade, pushed by high birthrates among Orthodox women. Along with the increase in the Orthodox population, there was also a dramatic increase in poverty rates and evidence of a continuing downward slide in the Jewish engagement of non-Orthodox Jews. The results were riveting and suggested the need for a major reorientation of UJA funding priorities. The study used state-of-the-art methods, but is the narrative of a changing New York Jewish community, as told by the survey, accurate? How do the outcomes reported in the study compare to non-survey data and what we know from other sources about New York Jewry? Continue reading →
Among the memorable characters created by Gilda Radner (z’l), one of the original cast members of Saturday Night Live, was an older woman, Emily Litella, who would mishear the news. After engaging in an angry diatribe in response to what she thought she heard, Emily would shyly follow up with an apologetic “never mind.” Radner’s sketches came to mind as I heard about the latest data on young adults’ attachment to Israel.
For a half dozen years, a rallying cry among leading pundits has been that American Jews are losing the commitment to Israel that characterized earlier generations. The “distancing hypothesis” was propelled into the consciousness of American Jews by pollster Frank Luntz and later by a number of social scientists. In what would become the dominant narrative of the last several years, Steven M. Cohen and Ari Y. Kelman argued in a 2007 report that a “mounting body of evidence has pointed to a growing distancing from Israel of American Jews, and the distancing seems to be most pronounced among younger Jews.”
This post is the second in our series profiling CMJS researchers. Today, we introduce Graham Wright, research associate at CMJS since 2005.
Your work primarily concerns Birthright Israel, correct? How does your background inform the way you see your work?
Graham Wright
My work largely concerns research connected with Taglit-Birthright Israel. However, I often lend a hand to other projects that require tricky statistics or sampling work. I’m generally interested in anything that delves into interesting methodological or analytical issues, especially if it requires digging into the literature and/or spending time staring up at the ceiling trying to figure something out. Any sort of problem solving usually appeals to me, regardless of the issue.
My background is in philosophy, which is somewhat unorthodox for a survey researcher. However, most of my knowledge of statistics is self-taught, and my background in philosophy was essential in helping me to absorb the abstract mathematical ideas lurking behind most statistical tests and formulas. In addition, difficult philosophical questions about things like causality and certainty are at the center of survey research, and I find wrestling with these issues is the most exciting part of my work here.
Any thoughts about the significance of your research for academics or policymakers?
Methodologically speaking, there is a large gulf between the larger social sciences field and the bulk of Jewish social science research. Many of the techniques we use to collect and analyze data have been standard in the social sciences for the last 50 years, but are still considered new and controversial in the Jewish world, and are often badly misunderstood. One of our biggest challenges is presenting our results in a manner that is easy to understand, but doesn’t gloss over the subtleties and qualifications that are present in any form of quantitative research. My hope is that the efforts we’ve put into finding new ways to present our data can help bridge the rift between Jewish social science research and the field as a whole.
What do you do when you are not estimating variances and wrestling with causality ?
I play guitar and keyboards in a dancy synth-rock band, which occupies the balance of my social life. My music tastes run the gamut from baroque to bluegrass to jazz to hip hop, although I find that punk rock is the best music to write Stata code by. I’ve been taking graduate courses for the past few years, and in September I’m beginning the Masters of Public Policy program at the Heller School at Brandeis. At the same time, I’ll continue my work at the Cohen Center.
The Jewish Community Study of New York, just published, describes fascinating developments in the largest center of Jewish life outside of Israel. There is much to digest and discuss. For the moment, though, I want to quickly address the small corner of the study that relates to a contentious issue among social scientists who study the Jews: trends in attachment to Israel.
The study’s authors, Steven Cohen, Jack Ukeles and Ron Miller, interpret the study’s findings to be consistent with Cohen’s broader claim that attachment to Israel is declining across the generations among non-Orthodox Jews, primarily due to intermarriage. A careful review of the evidence presented in the study report, however, suggests the possibility of an alternative interpretation. Continue reading →
The first of its kind, THE NEW PHILANTHROPY: AMERICAN JEWISH GIVING TO ISRAELI ORGANIZATIONS, draws on Internal Revenue Service documents to describe trends in American Jewish giving to Israeli organizations. Contrary to widespread belief, Eric Fleisch and I find that American Jewish giving increased substantially during the past two decades, roughly doubling to just over $2 billion before the great recession. We attribute increased giving to improved fundraising practices and growth in the number and variety of organizations fundraising in the United States, from 265 in the late 1980s to 667 in 2010. The largest sums were raised by organizations in the Zionist, welfare, and general education categories, followed by organizations in the medical, religious education, and arts & culture categories. The smallest sums were raised by organizations that support politically charged causes on the left (e.g. democracy, human rights) and right (e.g. West Bank settlements). We conclude that trends point to a rapidly diversifying philanthropic field and to ongoing engagement of American Jews with Israel.
The individual organizations are listed in the Appendix. We asking interested readers to help us by providing additions or corrections to this list of organizations. Please do so in our comment section.
A few weeks ago I testified, together with Len, before the Knesset Subcommittee on Israel-Diaspora Relations chaired by Einat Wilf.
Drawing on our recent research, I challenged the notion that American Jews are “distancing” from Israel. I noted that despite the popularity of the “distancing hypothesis” in the public discourse, there is actually little evidence for it. Rather than distanced, I described American Jews as increasingly divided among competing visions of Israel – of what Israel ought to be like, of what threatens Israel, and of how American Jews ought to relate to Israel. In other words, what many frequently misinterpret as evidence of distancing often reflects an interest in and deep caring for Israel.
Previewing our latest research, I discussed four segments of American Jews’ relationship to Israel: philanthropy, tourism, public opinion, and advocacy. Continue reading →
Who are the researchers who formulate the questions, create the surveys, analyze the data, run the focus groups, and author our publications? In this section we introduce you to some of our researchers and bloggers. First up, Nicole Samuel, researcher at CMJS since 2005.
I’m Nicole Samuel, research associate at CMJS. My research portfolio includes Jewish identity, Jewish education, and communal organizations. As a researcher, I’ve had different opportunities to do fieldwork, including spending several weeks in summers 2007 and 2008 traveling to Jewish overnight camps. I didn’t attend overnight camp as a child, but I think I made up for it with my field work. I saw the power of experiential Jewish education and learned how friendships at camp translate into life-long social networks. I observed campfires, Shabbat under the stars and even a production of “High School Musical” in Hebrew. I spoke with Israeli emissaries who were learning about the diversity of Jewish life in America and counselors who were deciding to dedicate their careers to Jewish education, and specifically, overnight camp. Continue reading →
Last year, along with several of my colleagues at the Center, we published a paper in the journal Contemporary Jewrythat reported, contrary to the conventional wisdom, that American Jews’ emotional attachment to Israel was not declining. Rather, according to the annual surveys conducted by the American Jewish Committee since the mid-1980s, the level of attachment had held fairly steady—or slightly increased—over the past quarter century. As often occurs when conventional wisdom is upended, our paper elicited challenges from skeptical colleagues.
Our colleagues’ challenges were both methodological and conceptual. The AJC surveys included only respondents who said their religion is Jewish. What if we had examined surveys that included respondents who identify as Jewish but not by religion? Moreover, almost all contemporary surveys report that older Jews are more attached to Israel. If declining attachment across the generations doesn’t explain this finding, then what does? Continue reading →
